Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: The CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Petitioners-Appellants, v. DISTRICT COUNCIL 37 AFSCME, et al., Respondents-Respondents.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J.), entered March 20, 2009, confirming an arbitration award which, insofar as challenged, directed petitioners (the City) to pay certain grievants employed as a Public Health Advisors (PHAs) by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene $1,800 for each year since the filing of the grievance, denied the City's application to vacate the arbitration award, and dismissed the petition, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The City argues that any monetary remedy for out-of-title work must be the difference in pay between existing titles covered under the parties' collective bargaining agreement, and not some “new term” of compensation “created” by the arbitrator in excess of her powers under the collective bargaining agreement and contrary to the public policy that compensation be negotiated. Whatever arbitral precedent there might be for such a limitation on the arbitrator's remedy-fashioning powers under collective bargaining agreements like this one, it plainly can have no application where, as here, there is no dispute that the hybrid out-of-title duties performed by the PHAs do not match the job specifications of any other existing titles. Surely, given such circumstance, an arbitrator's powers are not limited, as the City appears to argue, to a cease and desist order. Absent a plain and express contractual limitation to the contrary in the collective bargaining agreement, the arbitrator properly directed the parties to negotiate; when the negotiations reached an impasse, the arbitrator properly invited the parties to submit proof of the value of the out-of-title services performed, including their last best offers; and, on that basis, fashioned fitting and necessary relief (see Civil Service Law § 100 [1][d]; County of Rockland v. Rockland County Unit of Rockland County Local of Civ. Serv. Empls. Assn., 74 A.D.2d 812 [1980], affd 53 N.Y.2d 741 [1981]; Matter of North Carolina Cent. School Dist. [North Colonie Teachers Assn.], 60 A.D.2d 496, 498 [1978], affd 46 N.Y.2d 965 [1979] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 24, 2010
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)